Bug 851811 - Review Request: compizconfig-python - Python bindings for the Compiz Configuration System
Review Request: compizconfig-python - Python bindings for the Compiz Configur...
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: leigh scott
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2012-08-25 19:37 EDT by Wolfgang Ulbrich
Modified: 2013-02-12 08:23 EST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-01-29 02:04:32 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
leigh123linux: fedora‑review+
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Wolfgang Ulbrich 2012-08-25 19:37:41 EDT
Spec URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/compiz/SPEC/compizconfig-python.spec
SRPM URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/compiz/SRPM/compizconfig-python-0.8.4-3.fc17.src.rpm
Description: The Compiz Project brings 3D desktop visual effects that improve
usability of the X Window System and provide increased productivity
though plugins and themes contributed by the community giving a
rich desktop experience.
Fedora Account System Username: raveit65
Comment 1 Wolfgang Ulbrich 2012-08-26 06:37:14 EDT
This is a re-review of a retired package.
Comment 4 leigh scott 2012-12-26 06:58:51 EST
(In reply to comment #2)
> New starting point.
Spec URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/compiz/SPEC/compizconfig-python.spec
SRPM URL: http://raveit65.fedorapeople.org/compiz/SRPM/compizconfig-python-0.8.4-6.fc18.src.rpm

bump so review tool uses the correct srpm link
Comment 5 leigh scott 2012-12-26 07:12:37 EST

Package Review

[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

[!]: Package do not use a name that already exist
     Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[?]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "LGPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/leigh/851811
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[!]: Package do not use a name that already exist
     Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[?]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
[x]: Package functions as described.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is

Checking: compizconfig-python-debuginfo-0.8.4-6.fc19.x86_64.rpm
compizconfig-python.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/compizconfig-python-0.8.4/COPYING
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint compizconfig-python-debuginfo compizconfig-python
compizconfig-python.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/compizconfig-python-0.8.4/COPYING
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

compizconfig-python-debuginfo-0.8.4-6.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

compizconfig-python-0.8.4-6.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi) = 2.7

    compizconfig-python-debuginfo = 1:0.8.4-6.fc19
    compizconfig-python-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1:0.8.4-6.fc19

    compizconfig-python = 1:0.8.4-6.fc19
    compizconfig-python(x86-64) = 1:0.8.4-6.fc19

Unversioned so-files
compizconfig-python-0.8.4-6.fc19.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/compizconfig.so

MD5-sum check
http://releases.compiz.org/0.8.4/compizconfig-python-0.8.4.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6734ae35ee69d081f35f98a89cd3bccb411a4db7c5b35fbd226270d95ac76f5a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6734ae35ee69d081f35f98a89cd3bccb411a4db7c5b35fbd226270d95ac76f5a

Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 851811
Comment 6 Wolfgang Ulbrich 2012-12-26 07:20:54 EST
Package Change Request
Package Name: compizconfig-python
New Branches: f18
Owners: raveit65
Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2012-12-30 15:13:51 EST
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 8 Wolfgang Ulbrich 2013-02-12 07:49:53 EST
Package Change Request
Package Name: compizconfig-python
New Branches: f17
Owners: raveit65
Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-02-12 08:23:51 EST
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.